Case Analysis

Case Analysis

Case AnalysisCase AnalysisCASE ANALYSIS 4 Student name Case Analysis Mod 3 Professor Vivaldi Case Analysis and Fact Patterns Case #1 Kurt v. Saint Leo Police Department Main Issue : There are several main issues in this case. The main issue is the arrest that was made by a Saint Leo Police Officer. The Officer’s arrest of Kurt was based on an event that took place before the event was considered a violation of law. The issued arrest warrant led to the discovery of marijuana in the plaintiff’s home.Relevant Legal Concepts : The events in this case describe a violation of the ex post facto law, “laws that make acts criminal that were not criminal at the time they were committed” (Schubert, 2009, p. 308). Kurt was arrested for a noise violation that had occurred prior to the noise violation law being enacted. There was also an illegal search and seizure that took place before the arrest. “A valid search warrant must be specific and sufficiently descriptive. An officer conducting a search is prohibited from going outside the limits set by the warrant” (Schubert, 2009, p. 340). In this case the officer has gone outside the limits of the arrest warrant by entering the home and entering the refrigerator. (NOTE: Must have excerpts from text here)Relevant Case Law : In the case Weeks v. United States “we adopted the federal exclusionary rule for evidence that was unlawfully seized from a home without a warrant in violation of the fourth Amendment” (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). This illustrates the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. (NOTE: Same here) In this case the police officer has violated the ex post facto clause, unlawfully entered and searched the plaintiff’s home and falsely arrested the plaintiff. It is unlawful for the court to issue a warrant for the plaintiff’s arrest because the ex post fact clause states that a person cannot be charged for a crime that was not technically a crime at the time of commission. Due to the arrest warrant being invalid the officer had no right to enter the plaintiff’s home; the warrant was also only for the plaintiff and did not prescribe the search of the refrigerator as there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was hiding in the refrigerator. Therefore the marijuana was unlawfully discovered and not authorized to be a criminal charge. Ruling: The ruling in this case should reflect the disregard for the law by both the court that issued the warrant and the police officer. The officer not only violated the law but also violated the Saint Leo Police Department’s code of ethics by searching for a drink in the plaintiff’s home. The court should be held legally liable and the officer should be held legally and civilly liable. All charges should be dropped.Case #2 State v. Summer Main Issue : The main issue in this case is what charges if any should Anna and Summer face for their attempted bank robbery. Relevant Legal Concepts : In this case both Anna and Summer demonstrated their intent or mens rea to commit the crime of robbery. Anna’s intent is shown by the fact that she entered the bank with the duffel bag and mask as planned and when she reached the counter had then decided not to commit the robbery, however she mistakenly grabbed the wrong bag on her way out of the bank which contained $100,000. Summer’s intent is shown by her decision to take Ana to another bank and then wait outside for her to complete the robbery.Relevant Case Law : In the case State v. Gordon the defendant stated that he did not have intent to retain possession of the vehicle he took which would make him innocent of the charge of robbery. “The wrongdoer must intend: (1) an advantageous relationship between himself and the property wrongfully taken, and (2) that such relationship be permanent rather than temporary.” (Schubert, 2009, p. 316). It is this example that demonstrates Ana and Summer’s intent to take money from the bank for their own use.Ruling: Ana and Summer both demonstrated their intent to commit robbery by going to the bank with the bag, mask and getaway vehicle. Even though Ana did not actually rob her intended target, the bank, she still committed robbery because she came out of the bank with property that she did not go into the bank with and in the process of obtaining this property she had the real intent to rob the bank and leave with money. In my opinion both of the girls should be charged with robbery. Due to the facts stated above I believe that a judge would agree with the reasoning presented and proceed with the same charges.Case #3 Jason v. City Municipality Main Issue : The main issue in this case is whether the police officer had legal authority to enter the plaintiff’s home. Relevant Legal Concepts : This case refers to search and seizure concepts as well as the exclusionary rule. (Schubert, 2009) The police officer assumed that just because she saw a monkey in the plaintiff’s home it was the stolen monkey. She did not have sufficient probable cause to enter the home. The officer thought that she was using proper “knock and announce” procedures however those procedures apply to arrest warrants not vague suspicion. The officer also did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to answer the door. Relevant Case Law: In the case Hudson v. Michigan the court affirmed that a knock and announce “is not necessary when “circumstances present a threat of physical violence,” or if there is “reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given” (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). In this case it is not reasonable for the officer to believe that there are any circumstances that would present a threat or that any evidence would be destroyed if she did not knock and announce. Ruling: The police officer in this case did not have an arrest warrant or reasonable suspicion to enter the plaintiff’s home. Even though she knocked and announced herself she did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to open the door. She did not have any reason to believe that the plaintiff was a threat or that he would destroy evidence due to the fact that she was not aware of any potential evidence in the home. Because she did not have the legal authority to enter the home she cannot charge the plaintiff for the drugs found in his possession. Those drugs were discovered during an illegal search and seizure. The plaintiff should be acquitted of the charges brought upon him and the officer should be held legally responsible for violating the plaintiff’s fourth Amendment. She should also be held civilly liable for any damage she may have caused to his door upon the illegal entry into the home. References Shubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law. Mason, OH: Cengage . All cases cited throughout the narrative must also be cited here.

Paper For Above instruction

This case analysis explores three distinct legal scenarios, each illustrating crucial principles of criminal law, constitutional rights, and lawful procedures. An in-depth examination of each case underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards, respecting constitutional protections, and understanding the ramifications of unlawful actions by law enforcement and individuals.

Case #1: Kurt v. Saint Leo Police Department

The primary issue in this case revolves around the legality of an arrest carried out by the Saint Leo Police Officer, particularly concerning the timing and basis of the arrest. The officer's actions raise questions about violations of the ex post facto law, illegal search and seizure, and the validity of the issuance of an arrest warrant. The arrest was predicated on a noise violation committed before the law outlawing such conduct was enacted, which constitutes a violation of the ex post facto clause. According to Schubert (2009), laws that criminalize actions retroactively violate constitutional protections.

Further, the police’s conduct in executing the warrant exceeded the scope permissible under constitutional standards. The warrant was specific to the plaintiff’s residence and did not include the refrigerator or any other spaces within the house. Any search beyond the scope of the warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, as held in Weeks v. United States, wherein the Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule prohibiting evidence obtained unlawfully (Schubert, 2009). In this instance, the officer unlawfully entered the home, searched areas not covered by the warrant, and subsequently discovered marijuana, which was later used as evidence against Kurt.

The court’s rulings must emphasize accountability for the violation of constitutional rights. The invalid warrant and unlawful search render the evidence inadmissible, and charges stemming from such evidence should be dismissed. The officer’s actions breach both federal constitutional protections and the ethical standards of the Saint Leo Police Department, warranting civil and legal liabilities. Ultimately, the case exemplifies the importance of warrant specificity, adherence to constitutional guarantees, and the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence (Schubert, 2009).

Case #2: State v. Summer

The core issue involves determining whether Anna and Summer should face criminal charges for attempted bank robbery. Both individuals demonstrated mens rea, the necessary mental element for establishing guilt, by planning and attempting to commit a robbery. Anna’s actions—entering the bank with a duffel bag and mask—show her intent to rob. Although she decided not to proceed during the act of reaching the counter, her misconduct was evidenced when she exited with stolen property—$100,000 in cash—implying her initial intent fulfilled the elements of robbery (Schubert, 2009).

Summer’s complicity is evident in her decision to transport Anna to the bank and wait outside during the crime. Such actions suggest her shared intent and knowledge of the criminal purpose, satisfying the criteria for accomplice liability. In line with the precedent set in State v. Gordon, intent involves an advantageous and somewhat permanent relationship with the property, which both Anna and Summer clearly pursued (Schubert, 2009). Their behaviors and decisions reflect a joint criminal enterprise aimed at unlawfully acquiring bank funds.

Therefore, the court should hold both Anna and Summer accountable for attempted robbery. Legal principles establish that mere preparation or conditional actions do not absolve individuals from liability if they demonstrate intent and participate in criminal conduct. Given the evidence and legal standards, the charges should be upheld, leading to convictions that reflect their shared culpability.

Case #3: Jason v. City Municipality

The central issue concerns whether the police officer possessed lawful authority to enter Jason’s residence based on suspicion of theft of a monkey. The concepts of lawful search, Fourth Amendment protections, and the scope of the knock-and-announce rule are pivotal here. The officer’s assumption that a monkey was stolen based solely on observed presence lacks probable cause, a prerequisite for a warrantless search. As Schubert (2009) discusses, probable cause requires specific facts indicating criminal activity.

The officer asserted adherence to proper procedures, but her actions are inconsistent with established legal standards. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hudson v. Michigan affirms that knock-and-announce is not obligatory when there is a credible threat of violence or potential destruction of evidence (Schubert, 2009). Nonetheless, given the lack of such circumstances, her failure to provide adequate time for Jason to respond or to secure probable cause violates Fourth Amendment rights.

Consequently, any evidence obtained during this illegal search, including drugs, must be excluded under the exclusionary rule. The breach of constitutional rights renders the charges invalid, and Jason should be acquitted. The police officer may also be held liable for damages caused by the wrongful entry, emphasizing the importance of respecting constitutional procedures and standards for lawful searches and seizures.

Conclusion

These cases collectively illustrate the critical importance of legal compliance in law enforcement and individual conduct to uphold constitutional protections. Violations of the ex post facto law, illegal searches, or reckless assumptions about probable cause undermine justice and threaten civil liberties. Adherence to constitutional standards, proper procedures, and due process are paramount for ensuring fair outcomes and maintaining public trust in the legal system.

References

• Schubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law. Mason, OH: Cengage.
• Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
• Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).
• Gordon, S. (Year). Case details regarding intent and property. [Details to be filled based on actual case].
• Additional scholarly legal sources analyzing Fourth Amendment rights and procedural requirements.
• Legal commentaries on ex post facto laws and retroactive criminal statutes.
• Case law summaries related to search and seizure procedures.
• Legal analyses of accomplice liability in criminal law.
• Discussion on the importance of warrants and probable cause in law enforcement.
• Legal standards for evidence admissibility and exclusionary rule application.